Steve Hayes
2006-10-31 02:12:47 UTC
Last weekend we had Bishop Jovan of Ostrog Monastery in Montenegro visiting.
He spoke on the miracles associated with the relics of St Basil (Vassilje),
the founder of the Ostrog monastery.
It was difficult to follow what he was saying, because the interpreter was not
very good, and I found that even I knew when he was mistranslating (using
"religion" when the bishop meant "faith", for example). It comes of the
communist education many Serbs had, I suppose.
Later I got an opportunity to talk to Bishop Jovan, and to clarify some of the
things he had said. Among other things he had spoken about the contrast
between the emphasis in Western theology on intellectual knowledge and
rationalism, and the Orthodox emphasis on life. He spoke of the danger of
trying to intellectualise and rationalise things like the healings that had
taken place at Ostrog, and the temptation to use these to try to "prove" the
existence of God. Miracles of healing can easily become idolatrous if we fail
to realise that the biggest miracle is the incarnation. What is important is
not education, but holiness. Book religion is not enough: the Western church
may have holy books, but the Orthodox Church has holy people, like St Basil.
As an Anglican friend, John Davies, once wrote to me, what we need is not more
good men, but more holy men.
On thinking about this, it seems to me that the core of this is the difference
in anthropology. Western anthropology sees the individual and the collective.
In the West there may be debates about which is more important, the individual
or the collective. But Orthodox anthropology sees persons in community.
On the way to see Bishop Jovan I was listening to a talk show on the radio,
and the host, Xolani Gwala, was interviewing the author of a book called "I am
an African" (unfortunately I have forgotten the name of the author). One of
the points made by the author of the book was that European (Western) thought
saw people primarily as individuals, whereas in African thought community is
more important. The contrast he made was almost exactly the same as that made
by Bishop Jovan and other Orthodox Christians when comparing Orthodox
anthropology with Western anthropology.
Both African and Orthodox anthropology tend to see man in terms of persons in
community rather than in terms of individual or collective. The individual is
like a monolith, a single stone. The collective is like an aggregate, a pile
of stones. But the person in community is like a building; in biblical
imagery, like living stones built into a temple. As a Zulu proverb puts it:
umuntu ungumuntu ngabantu -- a person is a person because of people.
What Orthodox and African anthropology have in common is that both are
premodern, and therefore contrast with the modernity of Western anthropology.
Western anthropology is "European" in the sense that modernity arose out of
certain cultural movements that took place in Western Europe, especially the
Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But there is nothing
intrisically "European" about it, any more than the "person/community" model
is intrinsically "African". I believe the author of "I am an African" errs in
associating it too much with geography, though he does make the point that it
is primarily a matter of values.
Before the Renaissance Europe was premodern too. Christian mission in
Anglo-Saxon England, in Solomonic Ethiopia, and in Kievian Rus used
essentially the same methods and were based on the same values, and the same
anthropological assumptions. It was modernity that made the difference, and
modernity is not confined to Western Europe, but is spreading throughout the
world; the process is usually called globalisation.
It is one aspect of modernity, reason, that was the subject of Roman Pope
Benedict XVI's controversial Regensburg address. The media focused their
attention on its alleged anti-Islamic content, but the deeper implication has
gone largely unremarked: that Christianity is fundamentally "Western" or
"European", and that there is no place in it for "African" or other
non-Western insights.
Orthodox Christianity, as Bishop Jovan remarked, does not altogether reject
modernity. We make use of modern technology, like air travel and the internet.
We can accept the scientific method, based on empirical research and reason,
to better understand the natural world. But what we can learn by using these
methods is not all that we need to learn, and exalting them into ideologies,
such as rationalism, empiricism or positivism, becomes idolatry.
Postmodernity in the West is a reaction against modernism. Among other things
it is a recognition that what we can know through reason and empirical
investigation is not all we need to know, and that what we can learn through
the scientific method can tell us nothing about values. In addition, the
notion that the scientific method makes researchers objective and their
findings "value-free" is a delusion.
To that extent, Orthodoxy can empathise with Western postmodernity. And
Orthodoxy can also empathise with the "emerging church" movement that is
trying to come to grips with postmodern society in the West.
In the last few months I've been trying to find out what this "emerging
church" movement is about, and something of its missiological significance.
I've tried to read and listen and ask questions, but have said little. But now
I think I can say something about the emerging church movement from the point
of view of Orthodox missiology.
Several people who have identified themselves as part of the "emerging church"
movement have said things like "Orthodoxy has much to teach us about
spirituality". And it is here that I wish to make a distinction.
As an Orthodox Christian, I am suspicious of words like "spirituality". It is
a Western word, and denotes and connotes a Western concept -- "spirituality"
tends to be divorced from "materiality". Yes, Orthodoxy has terms like
"dushevnost", which can be translated as "spirituality", but a better
translation would be "Life in the Spirit", because it denotes a specific
relationship with the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds
from the Father.
In Orthodoxy, "spirituality" cannot be divorced from "materiality". And so
here is another point of difference between Orthodoxy and the West, even the
postmodern West: Orthodox theology is holistic, whereas Western theology, even
(or especially) emerging or postmodern theology, is eclectic.
It could be said that eclecticism is a characteristic of postmodernity, and
that may well be true, but it is a characteristic that arises from modernity.
Western (ie modern) thought is analytic. In studying something, it breaks it
down into its separate components and examines each one separately. And this
is not necessarily a bad thing. If you want to find out what is wrong with a
car engine, you might need to dismantle it to replace the worn-out main
bearings, for example. But that tells you nothing about what a car is for, or
the effect that it has on society or the environment.
For Orthodoxy, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Isolating
aspects of Orthodoxy, like "spirituality" loses something essential. So, if
there is to be dialogue between Orthodoxy and the emerging church movement,
the holistic/eclectic difference is one of the things that needs to be looked
at. Not in isolation, of course.
----
PS: I am posting this in various places. For the sake of communicating with
the emerging church movement, the main one is my blog at
http://methodius.blogspot.com
That is because emerging church people seem to communicate mainly through the
blogosphere, rather than through mailing lists or newsgroups, but I'm posting
it in mailing lists and newsgroups as well, where there are others whose views
and opinions I value.
He spoke on the miracles associated with the relics of St Basil (Vassilje),
the founder of the Ostrog monastery.
It was difficult to follow what he was saying, because the interpreter was not
very good, and I found that even I knew when he was mistranslating (using
"religion" when the bishop meant "faith", for example). It comes of the
communist education many Serbs had, I suppose.
Later I got an opportunity to talk to Bishop Jovan, and to clarify some of the
things he had said. Among other things he had spoken about the contrast
between the emphasis in Western theology on intellectual knowledge and
rationalism, and the Orthodox emphasis on life. He spoke of the danger of
trying to intellectualise and rationalise things like the healings that had
taken place at Ostrog, and the temptation to use these to try to "prove" the
existence of God. Miracles of healing can easily become idolatrous if we fail
to realise that the biggest miracle is the incarnation. What is important is
not education, but holiness. Book religion is not enough: the Western church
may have holy books, but the Orthodox Church has holy people, like St Basil.
As an Anglican friend, John Davies, once wrote to me, what we need is not more
good men, but more holy men.
On thinking about this, it seems to me that the core of this is the difference
in anthropology. Western anthropology sees the individual and the collective.
In the West there may be debates about which is more important, the individual
or the collective. But Orthodox anthropology sees persons in community.
On the way to see Bishop Jovan I was listening to a talk show on the radio,
and the host, Xolani Gwala, was interviewing the author of a book called "I am
an African" (unfortunately I have forgotten the name of the author). One of
the points made by the author of the book was that European (Western) thought
saw people primarily as individuals, whereas in African thought community is
more important. The contrast he made was almost exactly the same as that made
by Bishop Jovan and other Orthodox Christians when comparing Orthodox
anthropology with Western anthropology.
Both African and Orthodox anthropology tend to see man in terms of persons in
community rather than in terms of individual or collective. The individual is
like a monolith, a single stone. The collective is like an aggregate, a pile
of stones. But the person in community is like a building; in biblical
imagery, like living stones built into a temple. As a Zulu proverb puts it:
umuntu ungumuntu ngabantu -- a person is a person because of people.
What Orthodox and African anthropology have in common is that both are
premodern, and therefore contrast with the modernity of Western anthropology.
Western anthropology is "European" in the sense that modernity arose out of
certain cultural movements that took place in Western Europe, especially the
Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But there is nothing
intrisically "European" about it, any more than the "person/community" model
is intrinsically "African". I believe the author of "I am an African" errs in
associating it too much with geography, though he does make the point that it
is primarily a matter of values.
Before the Renaissance Europe was premodern too. Christian mission in
Anglo-Saxon England, in Solomonic Ethiopia, and in Kievian Rus used
essentially the same methods and were based on the same values, and the same
anthropological assumptions. It was modernity that made the difference, and
modernity is not confined to Western Europe, but is spreading throughout the
world; the process is usually called globalisation.
It is one aspect of modernity, reason, that was the subject of Roman Pope
Benedict XVI's controversial Regensburg address. The media focused their
attention on its alleged anti-Islamic content, but the deeper implication has
gone largely unremarked: that Christianity is fundamentally "Western" or
"European", and that there is no place in it for "African" or other
non-Western insights.
Orthodox Christianity, as Bishop Jovan remarked, does not altogether reject
modernity. We make use of modern technology, like air travel and the internet.
We can accept the scientific method, based on empirical research and reason,
to better understand the natural world. But what we can learn by using these
methods is not all that we need to learn, and exalting them into ideologies,
such as rationalism, empiricism or positivism, becomes idolatry.
Postmodernity in the West is a reaction against modernism. Among other things
it is a recognition that what we can know through reason and empirical
investigation is not all we need to know, and that what we can learn through
the scientific method can tell us nothing about values. In addition, the
notion that the scientific method makes researchers objective and their
findings "value-free" is a delusion.
To that extent, Orthodoxy can empathise with Western postmodernity. And
Orthodoxy can also empathise with the "emerging church" movement that is
trying to come to grips with postmodern society in the West.
In the last few months I've been trying to find out what this "emerging
church" movement is about, and something of its missiological significance.
I've tried to read and listen and ask questions, but have said little. But now
I think I can say something about the emerging church movement from the point
of view of Orthodox missiology.
Several people who have identified themselves as part of the "emerging church"
movement have said things like "Orthodoxy has much to teach us about
spirituality". And it is here that I wish to make a distinction.
As an Orthodox Christian, I am suspicious of words like "spirituality". It is
a Western word, and denotes and connotes a Western concept -- "spirituality"
tends to be divorced from "materiality". Yes, Orthodoxy has terms like
"dushevnost", which can be translated as "spirituality", but a better
translation would be "Life in the Spirit", because it denotes a specific
relationship with the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds
from the Father.
In Orthodoxy, "spirituality" cannot be divorced from "materiality". And so
here is another point of difference between Orthodoxy and the West, even the
postmodern West: Orthodox theology is holistic, whereas Western theology, even
(or especially) emerging or postmodern theology, is eclectic.
It could be said that eclecticism is a characteristic of postmodernity, and
that may well be true, but it is a characteristic that arises from modernity.
Western (ie modern) thought is analytic. In studying something, it breaks it
down into its separate components and examines each one separately. And this
is not necessarily a bad thing. If you want to find out what is wrong with a
car engine, you might need to dismantle it to replace the worn-out main
bearings, for example. But that tells you nothing about what a car is for, or
the effect that it has on society or the environment.
For Orthodoxy, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Isolating
aspects of Orthodoxy, like "spirituality" loses something essential. So, if
there is to be dialogue between Orthodoxy and the emerging church movement,
the holistic/eclectic difference is one of the things that needs to be looked
at. Not in isolation, of course.
----
PS: I am posting this in various places. For the sake of communicating with
the emerging church movement, the main one is my blog at
http://methodius.blogspot.com
That is because emerging church people seem to communicate mainly through the
blogosphere, rather than through mailing lists or newsgroups, but I'm posting
it in mailing lists and newsgroups as well, where there are others whose views
and opinions I value.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk